OT....way, way, ot... greg, of course you are right on several counts & yet I would be disingenuous if I did not take exception to the particular view which seems so prevalent in 'the new fundamentalism'.
I visited Garth's site where he has put his body of thought on public display. Culturally we reinforce the right to publish ones opinions or views without censorship, but not necessarily without rebuttal.
Sometimes the most 'foreign roots' live closest to home, & those prejudices most treasured are those which hide the source seeds of understanding.
If a culture values technical expertise, social status, ect... does it value moral intelligence? What constitutes moral intelligence, religion? Which is more important religion, or the religious experience? The book, or what the book stands for? The letter of the law, or the spirit in which it was written? Technologically clever, having banished the enemies without, have we resolved 'the devils within'? If the old moral order is so strong why is the culture so violent? Is violence learned, or innate? Is there a difference btw. a religious zealot in Iran who supports Muslim fundamentalism & a new age fundy Christian in Colorado Springs proclaiming moral absolutes?
"The only true knowledge is self knowledge".
Literalization, which I am calling reductionistic, is the concretization of subjective details, the making history of mythological or archetypal content as represented by the cultural ethos. (Ethos as defined by Webster,...the spirit of a people, a civilization, or a system, as expressed in its culture, institutions, way of thought, philosophy and religion, the universal element that informs a literary work, its irony, sadness, ect... as distinct from the subjective details of its making.) This is only possible by the elimination or neglect of due consideration of the mythological components, the imaginal "spirit of a people" , or those "universal element that informs", ie... values, that influenced the original works inception. Literary history, w/no mythological mystery, a polarization of viewpoint. By literalization we eliminate the most human of characteristics the imagination.
The human condition is such that the cultural ethos, represented by its great works of art, literature, architecture, ect... are expressed within the context of both a historical geography & a mythological psychology. Both history & mystery. Upon examining cultural myths we find that beneath the literal, geographic history, the contents, are mythologically similar. The works of Joseph Campbell & others have shown that reading human cultural history in an absolute literal sense, denies the greater mystery that self replicates across the various cultural boundaries, ie... what is viewed as true in Tacoma isn't necessarily so in Wichita, & yet the underlying value system that informs each is the same. These implicit values are 'archetypal'.
The polarization of perspective, ie...you only see what you are looking for, is in essence a self fulfilling prophecy, a implicit cultural trap that the teaching schools/religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Zen, Hinduism, Gnostics, ect... & metaphysical occult practices, tarot, astrology, divinations, ect... attempt to lead one out of, not deeper into. They point to something 'behind the curtain', not the curtain.
This process of depersonalizing & recognizing both a historical & mythological component requires an allegorical frame of reference, an 'as if sense of seeing likeness', metaphors, not absolutes. Truths become multiplicities, not singularities & the ability to encompass paradox becomes intrinsic. Words act as cultural containers, historical & mythological representatives, which may allude towards meaning, but never preempt that which must be experienced directly.
Sophia & wisdom represent a valuing which 'sees metaphorically'. Words, numbers & world religions are symbolic of 'truths', they themselves are simply the containers. Fundamentalism worships the words, the books, & disacknowledges the imaginal component, the most divine portion.
As for the religious vanquished who landed in America. The historical curiosity that up until recently our country has primarily been defined by the values associated w/its white, western European, colonial settlers, neglects the additional contributions of those who were already here, the native Americans, & those who came after, bringing diverse ethnic & racial backgrounds which continue to shape the American landscape.
The roots of the ideas of 'democracy' did not originate from Europe but via native Americans, as shown by William James Sidis, who demonstrated that a more pluralistic vision of human relations, ie... 'that all men be viewed as equals', supplant the royal anarchy & religious dogmas prevalent throughout European kingdoms. The American colonials incorporated this 'democratic' view from the Penobscot Indians into what became our constitution & declaration of independence.
Sorry for such a lengthy rebuttal, just tryin' to keep it straight.
Regis
|
